Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @10:11AM
from the we-call-this-the-might-fly-list dept.

Bob the Super Hamste writes "The New York Times is reporting that the TSA is now doing background investigations on passengers before they arrive at the airport. The publicly stated reason for this is that it is to streamline the security procedures at airports allowing more passengers to receive less scrutiny while at the air port but this new authority allows the TSA additional information about each traveler. The prescreening that is being performed for domestic travel now uses a simiar standard to that of foreign individuals who where entering the US. The new measures go beyond what is used in the Secure Flight program and while light on details mentions that the passengers passport number will be used. The article does however point out the data sources that are available to the TSA to conduct these pre-screening with such as tax identification number, past travel itineraries, property records, physical characteristics, and law enforcement or intelligence information. Also mentioned is that individuals who do not have a passport will not be subjected to the rules and from my reading will not be eligible for lesser screening at that airport. The stated goal of this program is to have 25% of all airline passengers in the US receive lighter screening at the airport so that they don't have to take their shoes off, remove jackets, or remove laptops from bags. Additionally passengers who are in higher risk categories can receive additional screenings. Also mentioned is that all passengers are currently prescreened and that airlines are required to share your passport data with the TSA if they have it." One thing I've noticed as a passenger is that the most dangerous-feeling aspect of flying right now seems to be the winding security line itself.

I practically died with joy the first time I got to use a pre-check lane. Kept my coat, shoes, and belt on, didn't take shit out of my bags. It almost justified the 8 hours it took me to get a global entry card (drive to boston, wait, talk to beurocrats about how I'm not a threat, drive back to vermont).

Unfortunately that's a load of crap. From what I have seen, they are trying to privatize the TSA. They believe it is unconstitutional for the government to do these screening but A-OK if its a private corp.

the crap is between your ears. Rand and co. just say the airlines themselves have a vested interest in their planes being safe so let them handle security arrangements. makes sense to me, what with the TSA being mostly useless dullards

This begs the question, then, of what evidence the government possesses to rationalize that we should be so afraid of non-metallic explosives being brought aboard flights departing from the U.S. that we must sacrifice our civil liberties. The answer: there is none. "As of mid-2011, terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports; instead, their focus is on fundraising, recruiting, and propagandizing."

The Tea Party does not control any branches of Congress. They can't "have votes". Every single Republican is united in voting against Obamacare, including the fraction of Republicans that are Tea Party people. The Republicans can "have votes" on Obamacare because they all agree.

How many times did the Libertarian Party have votes against the TSA? None? I guess the Libertarian Party doesn't care about freedom either. Right?

The Libertarian Party is an organized political party. The Tea Party is not.

The Tea Party's top issues are taxes, government debt, and the size and scope of government. The Tea Party doesn't tend to talk about drug legalization and the Tea Party doesn't have an open borders immigration policy. The Libertarian Party cares less about taxes and government debt and more about drug legalization and open borders.

Both groups would like the government to go back to obeying the US Constitution -- without the "any

Not only that, but no ID was necessary --- I once flew under an alias 'cause I was curious if it could be done --- even got a military ticket discount even though I never showed my military ID card (which had my proper name).

Back in the late 80's I took an entire week-long prepaid vacation (4 flights, 2 hotels & rental car) to Hawaii under someone else's name. It was my sister's boyfriend and he backed out of the trip at the last minute because of work. Sis called me up Thursday and said "You want a free trip with me to Hawaii tomorrow?" Hell yes, even if it was with my big sister.

The funny part is her boyfriend at the time had a very difficult, very long, very Polish name that I never did learn to spell right. And inevitably every desk clerk would ask how to spell it. I kept a card in my pocket with the name in big, bold letters that I would show them. But I boarded every plane and got every hotel & car reservation without showing even one form of ID.

9/11 was a huge PR coup for Al-Qaeda. Most Americans had never even heard of them prior to 9/11. Afterwards they were a household name. The terrorists also turned the USA into a nation that is now afraid of its own shadow and gropes toddlers at checkpoints.

The invasion of Iraq also turned many more people to Al-Qaeda's side and caused much more funding to be directed their way.

The world was better in the 90's. It was better than this. I'm pretty sure it's not just the nostalgia talking anymore. At least then a plane trip was something to look forward to.

Christ even the internet is going backwards nowadays. I'm pretty sure that peaked in 2006/7. After that it's all apps, iDinks, and walled gardens. At least you could set up a secure email service in 2007.

So what you're saying is you handed over your information to these hacks to prove you weren't a criminal, rather than being presumed innocent from the start. And you consider having to prove you're not a criminal a good thing?

So what you're saying is you handed over your information to these hacks to prove you weren't a criminal, rather than being presumed innocent from the start. And you consider having to prove you're not a criminal a good thing?

Actual, Pre is a side benefit from Global Entry. GE lets you bypass immigration by using a bio scanner as well as use a special customs lane. Years ago they had it for free from US - Canada; which was great during tourist season or when cruise ships docked..

You are assuming this is new. It's not. This pre-screening is part of how they make the no fly list. The new part is they are having three groups instead of just two. Those who can't fly, those who are low risk, and everyone else. This will let "important" people opt out of the security theater hassle, while still pretending it makes the country safer.

Can't comment on the England having more terrorist issues than the US, but I'll take your word for it.

I just recently learned that Russia has a far worse problem with it than we do here in the US. I can easily believe that of all countries we have less of an issue with terrorism than the rest of the world.

We had the pIRA. Bomb in London nearly caught my dad in the early '90s. This weekend I walked past the Brighton Grand Hotel, which was blown up in 1984 in a failed attempt to assassinate Thatcher and her puppets (they couldn't even get that right!). etc.

This only turned around when the government did the only progressive thing I've seen in British politics in the last 34 years: kick the bastards on all sides into a room and talk with them.

Can't comment on the England having more terrorist issues than the US, but I'll take your word for it.

It's always weird when I hear young folks claiming no knowledge of stuff that was front-page news in my youth. It's not their fault -- kids who weren't born until after I reached adulthood may never know about this stuff, since it'll fall in the 30-ish year history gap in school -- too recent to be in books, too old to be remembered. My grand-kids will learn it as ancient history. Me, I guess I'd know nothing about Korea and Vietnam except for M*A*S*H, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, etc. My wife's young

It certainly isn't "brave". You are accusing someone of being a coward.

jaw-jaw

I'm not really familiar with that phrase, but Google says it means to talk. I thought the UK was wall-to-wall closed circuit cameras? I'm also not sure that Ireland would agree that it was dealt with through discussion. The terror threat isn't a country-by-country contest - I think we're on the same team.

It was partly a response to that. Brighton didn't get all camera-happy after the government of the time were bombed while staying at a local hotel. But I guess that wasn't really terrorism, rather a good old-fashioned mass assassination attempt.

It certainly isn't "brave". You are accusing someone of being a coward.

False dichotomy. I certainly didn't regard it as brave that I gave up a good business opportunity because I was repulsed by America's behaviour at the beginning of the previous decade - I regarded it as the right thing to do. I picked myself up and went on to something else.

I'm not really familiar with that phrase, but Google says it means to talk.

...and it should evoke Churchill's famous remark.

I thought the UK was wall-to-wall closed circuit cameras?

No, but if you include private CCTV then there's quite a lot - especially in the centre of London, because, you know, cameras to record your visible behaviour on public streets are less in

That report talked up a whopping 4% increase in tourism during 2011 as compared to 2010.

It doesn't mention the 7% drop in 2009 [trade.gov], give any other historical context, or even mention that in many countries annual population growth exceeds 4%. If you only tell part of the story, you can draw whatever conclusion you like.

Hmmm so if someone was a threat, they would want one of these pre-check cards? Seems like anyone with a pre-check card should be considered suspect and marked for enhanced scrutiny.

I would argue that same logic for anyone who wants to run for Congress... Okay, perhaps "threat" would be a bit too strong for that case, but certainly: greedy, self-centered, short-sighted, narcissistic, entitled...

I practically died with joy the first time I got to use a pre-check lane. Kept my coat, shoes, and belt on, didn't take shit out of my bags. It almost justified the 8 hours it took me to get a global entry card (drive to boston, wait, talk to beurocrats about how I'm not a threat, drive back to vermont).

I missed the "with joy" part of that the first time I read it. I thought perhaps the TSA goons tried to murder you because you wouldn't take your coat, shoes or belt off.

I practically died with joy the first time I got to use a pre-check lane. Kept my coat, shoes, and belt on, didn't take shit out of my bags. It almost justified the 8 hours it took me to get a global entry card (drive to boston, wait, talk to beurocrats about how I'm not a threat, drive back to vermont).

Sounds like a battered housewife, explaining how the fact that her abusive husband only blacked one eye in his latest drunken rage means he really does love her.

You know what will destroy the domestic airline industry? Self driving cars. Oh there will still be some for those who do not want to 'wait in a car'. But you can make coast to coast in under 48 hours. Better if we could go faster and drive safely (which auto driving cars will allow). I suspect it will also eviscerate the hotel industry (or at least radically change them into a parking garage/lot sort of arrangement). As to make a 48 hour trip you will need somewhere to sleep (and not a car seat). So when you get where ever you will stay in your car.

Hmmm... not sure about that.
When I fly, I have to get to the airport at least 90 min before (that is pretty common, many arrive 2 hours before), add 30 min for travel from my house to the airport, add another hour from landing to getting a rental car, and another hour or so to get the destination, you are looking at 6 to 7 hours total for that 1.5 hour in the air. 8 to 10 hour drive is a distance I normally drive.

I practically died with joy the first time I got to use a pre-check lane. Kept my coat, shoes, and belt on, didn't take shit out of my bags. It almost justified the 8 hours it took me to get a global entry card (drive to boston, wait, talk to beurocrats about how I'm not a threat, drive back to vermont).

This is how far we've come. It is now refreshing when we are treated like respectable human beings. And you only had to jump through 8 hours of hoops!

See, they aren't even attempting to cloak this under a new threat of some kind. Now they are just trying to pretend it makes things more efficient. It won't. They will still scan you and your belongings. You will still not be able to save a few bucks by bringing your own drinks on board or even within the airport. You will still have to spend extra money on "travel-sized" things in order to comply with their nonsense.

See, they aren't even attempting to cloak this under a new threat of some kind. Now they are just trying to pretend it makes things more efficient. It won't. They will still scan you and your belongings. You will still not be able to save a few bucks by bringing your own drinks on board or even within the airport. You will still have to spend extra money on "travel-sized" things in order to comply with their nonsense.

I've been a precheck user since the program began (side benefit of having Global Entry - meaning I can sail through customs/immigration in a matter of a few minutes instead of an hour or more - I travel internationally 12-15 times a year). I go to the TSA security kiosk (I have never had a line of more than 1 person in front of me), drop my carry-on bags on a conveyor belt, and walk through the metal detector. No need to remove my laptops from my bag, pull out my toothpaste (4.5 ounce tube - oversized), t

This might be news on domestic flights but a few years back, arriving in LA from Australia, I was actually directly offered to step out of the international queue (I'm Canadian, but was with my Australian partner) to go into the US queue _without identifying myself_, that is I was directly solicited without volunteering any information about my nationality first.

Sure, they could have overheard my accent. But, on several other occasions I and my Australian partner arrived at the same time, with the same itineraries and the same bookings, and she always got SSSS and I didn't. I don't think I just got a pass for being Canadian. There has to have been more to it than that.

A CRJ feels a lot safer than Saabs ever did, and the oldest of CRJ aircraft are still newer than the newest of Mad Dogs. About 10-12 years ago I had to fly in a Saab from Atlanta to Bristol/Tri-Cities, which is surrounded by mountains. Everyone knows prop planes are drawn to mountains like tornadoes to trailer parks.

Serious question here: as a civilian electronics engineer working for the DoD, I had to go through a rigorous background check, interview process, and polygraph to obtain my current clearance level and job. This costs an extraordinary amount of money (likely over $10K [clearancejobs.com]), why the hell do I have to pay and go through yet another background check and interview process for pre-check?

One would think that we'd be in the business of trying to save some time and money these days....

Serious question here: as a civilian electronics engineer working for the DoD, I had to go through a rigorous background check, interview process, and polygraph to obtain my current clearance level and job. This costs an extraordinary amount of money (likely over $10K [clearancejobs.com]), why the hell do I have to pay and go through yet another background check and interview process for pre-check?

One would think that we'd be in the business of trying to save some time and money these days....

I work for an airline and wonder the same thing. I am cleared to work in and around planes every day, work with cargo and baggage, and for a time even had the clearance to go behind the customs and immigration areas(which has a limited number of clearances available). I go through no security beyond at most a badge check every time I go to work, and yet if i want to travel I have to go through the same system as everyone else. I fail to see how I could be cleared one day and a potential security threat t

You think that's dumb, I fly the damn things and get more heavily screened at some airports than the pre-check people. (Literally, was once thrown out of a precheck line with my entire crew, IN UNIFORM, because we "didn't qualify" and had to go through the regular line.)

They didn't refer to them as "internal passports", but the first thing I thought of was how we use to mock the Soviet Union for such things... while apparently they were just blazing the trail for America to follow.

It's actually easier than racial profiling anyone. Simply require the agencies of Law and Order to do their jobs and to track people who actually _are_ terrorists.

Short of that, does anyone really feel safer for all this "security state" oversight? Come on! Oh paranoid and fearful do you need to be to "buy into" this BS? Apparently quite fearful and paranoid, from the looks of things.

So while they spin this as "you'll get through screening quicker" what they really want is background checks on nearly everyone that travels by plane.
Fucking seriously let's save all that tax money and the tax money being wasted now, and just racially profile. What's the fucking problem?

On the other side of that, I have not flown commercially since before 9/11 and don't plan on it anytime soon.

Flying is no more dangerous now than it was before 9/11/01. In fact, it's probably less dangerous because passengers will not tolerate a hijacker nowadays. The security measures in place now would not have prevented the 9/11 hijackers from boarding the planes. That same attack would succeed today (at least the getting-on-the-planes part).

So what are we doing here? Security is no more effective than it was, but the government is keeping much tighter tabs on everyone. I used to get called a tinfoil-hatte

Look... nearly everything the government has done after 9/11 to stop 9/11 from happening again would not actually stop it from happening.

The people that did that would not have been stopped by more robust baggage screening. Even an air marshal might not have stopped them.

Passenger profiles can stop bad people because it isn't about what clever way they've come up with to sneak something dangerous on to the plane. Rather, you just look for bad people and ignore what is in their baggage because it doesn't mat

The thing is that before 9/11 the identities and whereabouts of most of the hijackers were already known to US intelligence. This type of screening would not have been necessary because the CIA and DIA knew these people were terrorists and knew they were in the country. Two of them lived with an FBI informant for crying out loud. So the intelligence agencies already had the power and capabilities they needed to identify terrorists even before they got these new powers. It's a power grab.

"One thing I've noticed as a passenger is that the most dangerous-feeling aspect of flying right now seems to be the winding security line itself."

Really? I despise the TSA and the burdensome screening process as much as the next person, and this is far from sympathising, but you honestly mean to say you felt endangered by the screening process? Of all the legitimate dangers you face in your daily life, and you're going to try to convince people that walking through a winding line and submitting to largely no-contact screening makes you fearful? And then you expect people to take you just as seriously after that?

I think he was more pointing out that that huge crowd of people that can't evacuate the area easily or quickly is actually a pretty prime target for terrorist mayhem.

Absolutely. If I was a suicide bomber, this is exactly where I'd explode my bomb. I reckon I could get a devastating quantity of explosive in a carry-on bag and detonate it in the snake-line. Also get an accomplice to do the same in a check-in line with a full-size suitcase packed with HE.

While it might not have the glamour of bringing down an aircraft, no matter where the TSA or local equivalent move the security line to (pre-security security, pre-security security security...), passengers are still vulnerable to this attack. I can't see a practical defence against it.

I think the parent poster meant to indicate that the security line itself presents a target for attack, rather than that the screening process (aside from the requirement of a lengthy queue) was dangerous.

I might debate that, though, having suffered a cut on the sole of my foot from broken glass on the floor in one of those lines, past the "remove your shoes now" sign. Stay classy, Milwaukee International.

what makes it fearful to those that are squeamish that way is the large concentration of people in a single location, not the screening itself. The screening line is a big juicy target OUTSIDE the secured area for some that are inclined to take that sort of action.

Of all the legitimate dangers you face in your daily life, and you're going to try to convince people that walking through a winding line and submitting to largely no-contact screening makes you fearful?

From a terrorism standpoint, it is far easier - trivial, in fact - to wheel a luggage cart full of explosives into the screening queue than it is to get those same explosives (or even a fraction of them) aboard an aircraft. Depending on the airport and the time of day, the screening queue may well have more people in it than most airliners. (For that matter, the check-in area is probably at least as vulnerable; passengers will still have their unchecked full-sized suitcases and parcels, and the check-in

"One thing I've noticed as a passenger is that the most dangerous-feeling aspect of flying right now seems to be the winding security line itself."

Really? I despise the TSA and the burdensome screening process as much as the next person, and this is far from sympathising, but you honestly mean to say you felt endangered by the screening process? Of all the legitimate dangers you face in your daily life, and you're going to try to convince people that walking through a winding line and submitting to largely no-contact screening makes you fearful? And then you expect people to take you just as seriously after that?

The security line is a much easier target than the airplane itself. If you want to terrorize people, bombing the security line is a good way to do it. Can you imagine what it would do to air travel if you could be killed waiting in line?

The science and the math behind the tools of control are not classified. There is no classified physics, chemistry, and math. You and I can access them and learn. The components and sensors and knowledge required to build resistance measures are open source. You and I can see them, understand them, and employ them. In Today's--though perhaps not in "Tomorrow's"--America, you can still acquire the tools you need to resist and defeat Tyranny.

Take stock. Search your own heart. Can you live in a world where you are not free? Most of you will choose controlled comfort. You will cede control over your very existence to some remote, faceless drone within a bureaucracy, be it government- or corporate-controlled. Still there are a few who would rather die, no matter how much they have to lose, than acquiesce to petty, stupid tyrants.

I have a wife and kids. I love them dearly. I want to live a long life with them. But if I could trade my life for their freedom, I would do so in an instant. Those of you who are like me, assess and consider. We have been in a bubble of denial, but now that time is over. We all must choose whether to stand and be counted, or to kneel and submit. Choose the former and you're an American, choose the latter and you're a slave.

But what pisses me of is that I have to do all of this without proper infrastructure at the checkpoint. Those lines are still designed for people walking through the scanner in paralell to one item going through X-ray. Pick up your carry on after the scanner and walk on. But now this design gets clogged up by people like me who are unfortunately born with only two arms and hands and therefor CANT'T pick up their stuff as it comes out of the X-ray item by item. That's what bags were invented for!

I apologize to all people who had to wait behind me because I had to repack my bag, re-tie my shoes and wear my belt again. I'm sorry, but I can't remove that stuff all at once.

Maybe they should use logic instead. Bulletproof and lock the cabin door so nobody is getting in under any circumstances. Increase bomb and explosive detection technology. Leave it at that. Then how suspicious or dangerous a passenger is has no relevance because they're not hijacking the plane and they're not blowing it up.

It used to be that every time news like this came out I would think that things couldn't get much worse, but recently I have come to the conclusion that things can and will continue to get a lot worse. I now wonder just how much worse will it get? What's going to be next and when will the madness stop?

"One thing I've noticed as a passenger is that the most dangerous-feeling aspect of flying right now seems to be the winding security line itself."

Exactly this. You wouldn't need to worry about getting past security, or even having a plane ticket, to cause all kinds of panic & pandemonium with a b*mb. At times there are hundreds of people standing in those lines in the larger airports...

The security line is an easy target. It would be trivial to successfully attack one. And yet it doesn't happen. It almost makes one think that terrorism isn't much of a threat.